United States v. Hinojosa ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 00-41169
    Summary Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    OSCAR LUIS HINOJOSA,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. B-00-CR-27-1
    --------------------
    September 17, 2001
    Before DUHÉ, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:1
    Through counsel, Oscar Luis Hinojosa has appealed his sentence
    for   conspiracy   and     possession   of    marijuana   with   intent   to
    distribute it.     Hinojosa, who has been a fugitive since the
    selection of the petit jury, was tried and sentenced in absentia,
    pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 43(b).          The Government contends that
    Hinojosa’s appeal should be dismissed pursuant to the “fugitive
    disentitlement doctrine.”       Inexplicably, defense counsel did not
    reply to this argument.
    1
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
    except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
    R. 47.5.4.
    “[A] long escape, even if it ended before sentencing and
    appeal, may so delay the onset of appellate proceedings” that
    dismissal of the appeal would be appropriate.             Ortega-Rodriguez v.
    United States, 
    507 U.S. 234
    , 249 (1993).          Thus, “appellate courts
    may exercise [their discretion to dismiss fugitives’ appeals] by
    developing generally applicable rules,” which do not need to be
    uniform among the circuits.     
    Id. at 250-51
    nn.23 & 24.
    Dismissal of Hinojosa’s appeal is appropriate under Ortega-
    Rodriguez because Hinojosa has had a “long escape” which shows no
    signs of ending in the foreseeable future.          As a result, dismissal
    of his appeal is supported by enforceability concerns,             serves an
    important   deterrent    function,       and   advances    “an   interest   in
    efficient, dignified appellate practice.”           
    Ortega-Rodriguez, 507 U.S. at 242
    .
    APPEAL DISMISSED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-41169

Filed Date: 9/18/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021